|
<br />~,...
<br />
<br />BLACK CANYON INFO&nON PAPER
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Oct, 2000
<br />
<br />The Colorado court also referenced United Slates v, New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, (1978), in which
<br />the Supreme Court upheld the New Mexico Supreme Court's ", , , distinction between the
<br />primary purposes for which a federal reservation is created and the secondary uses of federal lands
<br />that may be pennitted or authorized by statutll or administrative practice, and concluded that only
<br />the fonner provides a basis for reserved rights," 656 P,2d at 18,
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The Colorado Supreme Court concluqed: We helieveiltat in these appeals, as in CaTJTJaert and
<br />New Mexico, our real task lies not so much ill an exdmination of federal pawer to reserve waters,
<br />but rather with the necessity to. state the limits and contours of the exercis~ of such federal
<br />power, To that end, we approve the procedure utilized by the'w.ater court in determining the
<br />federal government's entitlements under the rf'served water rights doctrine, For each federal
<br />claim of a reserved water right, the trier of fact must examine the documents reserving the land
<br />from the public domain and the underlying legislation authorizing the reservation; determine the
<br />precise federal purposes to ,be served by such legislation; determine whether water is essential
<br />for the primary purposes of the reservation; af1!i finally determine "he precise quantity of water-
<br />the minimal need as set forth in Cavpaert and New Mexico - requiied forsuch purposes,
<br />Hawever, absent an enunciation of a rule offederal law by the United States Supreme Court,
<br />absent congressional action, and absent impingement on vital federal interests, we hold that
<br />Colorado law governing the determination oj water rights is properly applied as the role of
<br />decision by which we determine the contours of the reserved rights asserted by the United States,
<br />656 P ,2d at 20,
<br />
<br />>i
<br />
<br />The Colorado Supreme Court also stated: ,We cannot accept the federal gaveminent 's assertion
<br />that the National Park Service Act expands the purposes for which national monuments are
<br />granted reservations oJwater. . , " We are, in effect, asked to treat monuments as having the
<br />same recreational and aesthetic purposes as national parks. Our review of the statutory and
<br />legislative record convinces us that Congress intended national monuments to be more limited in
<br />scope and purpose than national parks, , . , National monuments were included in the National
<br />Park Service Act for administrative purposes - to provide for their management by the National
<br />Park Service within the Department of the Intaior, " The court concluded that ", , , we must
<br />look to the purposes for which the monument was established, not to the purposes for which
<br />national parks were established, in determining the necessity for reserved water rights. 656 P,2d
<br />at 28,
<br />
<br />Court Decision: The Colorado court decree Water Division No, 4, pertaining to the Black
<br />Canyon of the Gunnison National Monumenl, March 3, 1986, is attached, It recognizes various
<br />conditional and absolute water rights, The Court directed the United States to file a
<br />quantification of the amounts of water needed in the Gunnison River to fulfill the purposes ofthe
<br />monument, The United States should file an application which specifically includes:
<br />
<br />1. The legal description of the points comprising the beginning and ending of each stream
<br />segment for which a different amount of water is claimed,
<br />
<br />2. The amount of water required during e,ach week of the year, described in cubic feet per
<br />second of time, for the maintenance of minimum stream flows in each stream segment.
<br />
<br />C-2
<br />
<br />002716
<br />
<br />-~:
<br />
|